U.S. helping to pull the trigger for gun and drug war in Mexico

by Christina Lovato, University of New Mexico-Talk Radio News Service

“Firearms from the United States civilian gun market are fueling violence on both sides of our border with Mexico...The United States, it doesn’t just make trafficking military style weapons to them easy it practically compels that traffic.” said Tom Diaz, a Senior Policy Analyst at the Violence Policy Center and author of “Making a Killing: The Business of Guns in America.” at a Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing titled “Money, Guns, and Drugs: Are U.S. Inputs Fueling Violence on the U.S.- Mexico Border?”

Last year an estimated 6,290 drug-related murders occurred in Mexico and the death toll is still rising. Congressman John Mica (R-Fla.) said. “We’ve got to help them regain control with a plan and a policy of that country. It’s totally out of control, it is a slaughter house and its on our borders and it's spilling into our cities.”

“Mexico matters to the United States...not just because Mexico is our neighbor...it is an issue where we are both deeply involved...U.S. drug sales account for as much as $10 to $25 billion each year that is sent back to Mexico to fuel violence and to support the cartels,” said Andrew Selee, the Director at the Woodrow Wilson Center Mexico Institute. Selee offered three recommendations on how to stop the flow of guns and drugs between Mexico and the United States. Selee expressed that the U.S. should reduce the consumption of drugs by investing in drug prevention programs; second, to disrupt the billions of dollars that flow from drug sales in the U.S. and back to drug trafficking organizations in Mexico by developing the intelligence capabilities to detect where the money is being transported from and to where. Third, to limit the flow of high caliber weapons from the United States to Mexico by increasing the number of ATF inspectors at the border and to increase cooperation with other law enforcement agencies.

Jonathon Paton, Arizona State Senator gave his thoughts on how to stop drug and gun trafficking as well and said, “the other thing we could do is to look at comprehensive immigration reform...which will allow us to focus on the real problem at hand which is the smugglers and not the people that are trying to find employment in the United States.”

Other representatives expressed their thoughts on the issue like Congressman Dan Burton (R-Ind.), who said, “I think drugs are the scourge of the Earth, I think that anybody that deals in drugs ought to be put in jail permanently or killed. That’s how bad I think drugs are.”

Preventing terrorism and violent crime with a lot of natural light

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives dedicated their new national headquarters today. The new building is located in the area north of Massachusetts Avenue, and the facility is hoping to support the revitalization and growth of the emerging downtown area.

The building itself is much to be admired at 422,000 square feet, it was designed by Moshe Safdie and consists of three inter-connected wings in a reverse L shape and has long corridors and atriums to allow for lots of natural lighting. The new building has lots of office space, housing nearly all ATF employees, training rooms, an auditorium seating 3,000, underground parking and auxiliary services. The building “serves as an anchor for the redevelopment of a historic” neighborhood.

The ATF is active in its regulation of firearms and explosives, as well as the apprehension of armed violent criminals, bombers and arsonists. “When we see ATF on the job we know the crime will be solved,” said Congresswoman Eleanor Norton (D-D.C.). Norton stressed the importance of the ATF in a post 9/11 world and said that they have never been more important and hopes the new building will help.

“This state of the art building and space will inspire the men and women of the ATF as they carry out their mission to reduce violent crime and protect the nation,” said Michael Sullivan, action director of the ATF.

Supreme Court opinions today

Justices Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg announced a dissent from a decision made by the Court to allow a Virginia execution to go through. The VA method of execution is similar to Kentucky lethal injection procedure at issue before the Court this term (and of which the Court eventually approved). The Supreme Court had issued an order stopping the execution last fall while it considered the pending case, and today it lifted that order. That execution is still under consideration by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the defendant can go to that court and ask them to stay the execution while it's being considered, but Justices Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg would have preferred to leave the Supreme Court's order in place instead.

US v. Rodriquez: Rodriquez was convicted of felony possession of a firearm. Under federal law, he was eligible for a higher sentence if he had been previously convicted of a felony with a 10-year maximum sentence. He had previously been convicted of a drug crime in Washington that would normally only carry a 5-year sentence, but because it was his third conviction that maximum was extended to 10 years. (He was sentenced to 48 months.) The question for the Court was whether they should count the 5-year normal maximum or the 10-year recidivist maximum. The Supreme Court, 6-3 (Alito writing the main opinion), said the 10-year maximum is the one that counts. Souter, Stevens, and Ginsburg dissented.

Kentucky v. Davis: Kentucky says you don't have to pay income tax on interest from Kentucky state-issued bonds, but you do have to pay such taxes on bonds from other states. Taxpayers claimed discrimination against interstate commerce, in violation of the "dormant Commerce Clause." 7-2, Supreme Court said the tax was fine, since the tax was not a form of economic protectionism.

US v. Williams: Williams child pornography. He gave it to some other people. He was charged and convicted of possession of child pornography, but he was also charged and convicted of a relatively recent law that criminalized pandering (either offering or asking for) of something you think is child pornography. Under this law, you can be convicted for a separate crime if the material in question actually is child pornography (as it was in Williams's case), or if it's obscene (basically something really graphic). Williams argued his offering of the child pornography was free speech, but the Supreme Court, 7-2 (with a Scalia majority (he's
usually for strong First Amendment rights) and Souter, Ginsburg dissent), said the law was ok, so Williams's conviction is upheld.

US v. Ressam: Ressam lied to customs officers while attempting to enter the US by ferry in Washington state. A search of his car found explosives that he planned to use to blow up LAX. He was charged under a law that made it a crime to lie to customs while "carr[ying] an explosive during the commission of" that felony." Even though the explosives weren't related to his lie, the Supreme Court 8-1 said it was OK to charge him under that law.